aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intents

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the useful nuance that these are 'authenticated worker' proposals viewed from a manager role, but says nothing about scoping, volume, or whether inspection affects lifecycle.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded line with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise; the brevity leaves essential context unstated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return values, but with a completely undocumented required parameter and no lifecycle context relative to the paired dispose tool, an agent cannot confidently construct a call from this definition alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required request_id parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains whether request_id identifies a proposal batch, a task, or a manager request handle.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'inspect' and the resource 'context-write proposals' are present, and the 'MANAGER READ' prefix signals a read-only manager gate. But what a 'context-write proposal' actually is and what 'inspect' returns is left vague, and the sibling aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intent_dispose is never named or contrasted.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to call this before disposing via aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intent_dispose, or how it relates to aiworkhub_manager_context_graph_event_write. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.